Ted Casablanca himself is gay, isn't he? I'm a little confused at his callousness.

I have shame. I used to hold the bigoted opinion that bisexuality didn't exist. I would tell hypothetical bisexuals to "pick one" or call them greedy... later I realized that not everyone's mind works the same way mine does, and not everyone's sexuality works the same way mine does. I've always accepted that homosexuality exists, and I now realize that bisexuality isn't just someone being greedy, indecisive, or what-have-you, but that they truly value the sexualities of both genders. I guess I just had to grow up a little more and accept that not everyone is sexually attracted to only one gender. This realization was in part precipitated by beginning to understand non-dualism and rejecting the traditional (in this country) binary approach to all things including sex.

What the hell do those poll options even mean, anyway?!

Gah, this "bisexuality isn't real" stuff makes me so angry. Probably understandable, since I'm bisexual myself. But seriously, people, are your perfect binaries really that precious?

For those unfamiliar with biphobia in the gay and lesbian community, I offer a link to Sarah in Chicago's amazing and moving post on the subject. Shakesville has changed comment services, but the original mammoth thread is linked from the last comment. It's worth a read.

First, abotu Lohan: being famous at an early age tends to be bad for people. I feel for LL. She has a screwed up family and has struggled with substance abuse. She now has a relationship that seems to offer her love and support and help her keep her shit together, and I wish her the best. Throwing shit at her over her identity is not helping.

About identity: I wasn't aware that Lohan had said she was bi. I thought she said she was with Ronson. She may be lesbian. She sure wouldn't be the first lesbian to have several failed relationships with men in her early teens and even twenties. Or maybe she is bi. But it seems to me we're not in much of a position to comment on how she identifies when she hasn't even said clearly how she does.

Also,

Sorry, poor proofreading.

Thomas, thanks so much for that link. The comments on the post really resonate because while I think I might be bisexual, opportunity and sheer numbers have led to me only dating men so far, and I always hesitate to say anything because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be taken seriously.

I've thought, too, that Lohan seems like she's finally in a happy place, and that people should be glad for her rather than getting all "Is she or isn't she?" about it. I'm glad for her that she feels like she can have that relationship in the public eye.

Come on now, we bisexuals are like unicorns! We frolic around in the woods, terrorizing bad stereotypes and stealing your girlfriends and boyfriends because we are greedy. We couldn't possibly be "real" because then we would have to be recognized as something other than confused sexpots.

Sorry for the rant. I get this crazy impulse to give a good ol' whack across the head every time an individual or community denies the existence or substance of another persons identity. When I went to college, the first stop I made was to the LGBTA center at WSU and was promptly told, for my own good of course, that bisexuals were not welcome among the current members. We caused too much anxiety and hostility. The director wanted to be clear that *she* didn't feel that way, but the others did. Because as the director, there is nothing you can do about the discourse concerning exclusion within the queer community. Ugh.

...Homoville?

Well, everyone technically is at least a little bit bisexual, they say, so I guess it's "easy" to declare yourself bi that sense, and people who have had a hard time often get rubbed the wrong way by people who, they perceive, have it easier than them.

People change and sexuality can change in a person over time, I think it does usually. I indentify as being strictly heterosexual now, but in the past I have had homsexual feelings and desires that I no longer have at all.

To say that it is impossible to be attracted to both sexes at the same time is bullshit. Of course you can, why not? But just because someone indentifies as being bi-sexual now doesn't mean they are going to be bi-sexual forever.

Of course not everyone changes their preference in gender, but there is more to sexuality than just gender attraction. Some people prefer certain kinks, styles, looks, and personality. We tend to label sexuality though mostly on gender attraction instead of looking at a person's sexuality in it's entirety, instead placing people in boxes a, b, or c.

Westerners often think in bilateral terms of black and white, good and evil, masculine or feminine... we prefer yes or no questions with one right answer. When someone offers a third option or more we can't seem to wrap our minds around it. Your either one or the other. More than three possibilites and our heads explode.

I'd like to know if true *heterosexuality* exists, because I've been attracted to both "boys" and "girls" since a young age. Having grown up surrounded by messages that only one type of attraction was okay I suppressed the other, successfully, for better or worse. But I'm of the mind that anyone who says they've never wanted to kiss and touch a member of the same sex is hiding the truth.

Back before I had confidence that I could have relationships with women, I would vehemently deny any nature of sexual attraction toward men, because that would have made me "gay." Later I would be willing to consider certain types of men for sex or a relationship (not masculine types), though it has never happened, because I prefer women. Now I consider myself simply curious, and am able to appreciate attraction toward certain men or types of men.

I'm not sure what options 1 & 2 signify.

Ooops, i meant 2 & 3

Here we go again.

Western binary gender.
Western binary race.
Now Western binary sexuality.

Rachel Setzer, thanks for sharing. Can you shed some more light on the whole "greedy" concept? How do believers of such "bi greed" explain their view on the subject? It seems an intenable position to take, especially considering that Heidi Klum's not considered "greedy" for having sexual relationships with both European and West African men. And Gwyneth Paltrow's not "greedy" for dating an American and marrying a Brit.

I totally agree with you Okra - how is it "greedy"? That just makes no sense.
Does believing that bisexuals aren't really bisexual related to the gender binary? Like, (bear with me here) believing you can either be a man or a woman, and a man is butch and a woman is femme, but sometimes a woman is butch or a man is femme, and that means they're gay. I guess if you buy all that, bisexuality would threaten your whole concept of sexuality and sexual identity. Does that make any sense?

I was happy to see so many comments on Casablanca's page calling him out on this. A lot of very different bisexual people coming out and telling about their very different bisexual experiences and situations and really making the point that triviliasing and stereotyping bisexuality as "experimenting" or "on the way to gay" only serves to further discrimination. As a bisexual woman myself, I have not come out to my family and (a few) friends simply because I already know that they don't believe in it, and they see it as pure 'experimentation'. I have a strong leaning towards men, but when I tell people that YES I can imagine spending the rest of my life with the right WOMAN, they tend to give me a confused look like "But, if you prefer men then how can you say that?". I don't pretend that it's easy to understand, heck I don't fully understand it myself, but that's no reason to question its existence or trivialise those who identify as Bi.

As an added note on the 'greed' issue: I've met a lot of people who believe that bisexuals are incapable of having a monogamous relationship 'because wouldn't you always be attracted to the other sex?'. It's a real *headdesk* moment for me as someone who does prefer monogamous relationships, and I always respond with another question: "So in your monogamous heterosexual relationships you're never attracted to other people?" It's not an issue of attraction, it's an issue of "I love my partner, I want to be with them, they expect monogamy of me as I expect monogamy of them. So I'm not going to cheat." Just as it is with any single-gender-attracted relationship. Gawd!!

Hmm ok so that was my little rant! ;)

This seems like a misrepresentation to begin with because the author seems to be discussing celebrities prominently, who often do things for the attention or shock value it'll ring up in a magazine. It's a dishonest representation of real, everyday bisexuals.

I think bisexuality is something that's not discussed much, and so people have a very limited understanding of it. Thirty years ago (and even a lot now), people thought all gay men were effeminate and all gay women were super-butch. Homosexuality wasn't discussed much, and those were the stereotypes people had to go on.

When I was in school, the predominant image of a bisexual was of a college-aged girl who made out with girls at parties in order to titillate guys. It didn't help that some of the bisexual-identified girls in my school's GLBT group would talk about how they wanted to be dating more girls and felt bad when they dated guys--it gave the impression that they dated girls to be political or to make a statement.

I think pure hereo- or homosexuality is rare; most people are a bit of both. But our society is so binary: men and women are sooooo different, so you can only like one! Which is why we have an issue with transgendered people and bisexual people; both rise above a man/woman dichotomy and confuse us.

Whenever this topic comes up, I usually throw out the notion that the orientation of one's sexual attraction does not necessarily match the orientation of romantic interest. Sexual orientation, narrowly construed, is who we want to have sex with. Who we want to have relationships with is sometimes called affectional orientation. Obviously, for most people those two things will map each other pretty closely. But they are not necessarily completely congruent. There are lots of "heteroflexible" folks who have sex with men and women but only have relationships with members of the opposite sex. Some of that is privilege, but I think it's too simple to just declare that they are wrong. Likewise, there are plenty of lesbians who have had occasional male partners. It seems presumptuous to say they're not what they say they are, especially if they would never want a romantic relationship with a man.

The notion of "greedy" comes from seeing love as a zero-sum game--as if someone with a lot of lovers is denying someone else a lover. It's one of the false concepts polyamory theory tries to address.

fuck off, Ted Casablanca

I'm so glad to see reference to Sarah in Chicago's post! I think it was so awesome of her to write. But, I'm biased.

Anyway, I'm hesitant to make any judgments of LiLo's sexuality, since it's very much a self-identity thing. But what's with the reference to Angelina Jolie or Anne Heche? Seriously? Aren't there better celebrities to reference when talking about bisexuality?

I think what makes it a tricky identity (as I wrote for the blog I contribute to) is the whole revolving closet thing. Let's say LiLo and Sam break up and LiLo dates a man. Then everyone will say it was just a phase. Being bisexual is a constant process of coming out.

And "fave male body part"? Such a simplistic view of sexuality!

It is not Ted's place to label Lindsey's sexuality. Personally, I have said that just because Lindsey is dating Sam doesn't mean she is a lesbian. She could be bisexual or maybe she doesn't label her sexuality. It is up to Lindsey to label her sexuality or to choose not to. As it is with everybody. I'm bisexual and I get tired of people labeling my sexuality for me (i.e. that I'm really straight because I don't fit any lesbian stereotype) so I'm not going to be a hypocrite by labeling someone else's sexuality.

Thanks for all the thoughts on "bi greed."

(BTW, I meant to type untenable up there; the u and i are close on the keyboard).

I agree entirely with the several analyses of bisexual-denial or policing as an extension of the rigid gender binaries that rule our society. After all, when gender is so narrowly construed--and so carved in stone or our "genes," as essentialists assert--sex must likewise be binary, narrow, and implacable.

Could part of the problem be that we're so obsessed with "identity" and "sexuality" and making those the same thing? Full disclosure, I come at this as a straight white woman. But my thought is that under any other circumstances I think most of us would be really insulted if someone tried to define us based on who we wanted to have sex with--someone brought up Heidi Klum dating European and West African men and how that doesn't "confuse" anybody.

My friend's brother is in the process of coming out, which is made pretty difficult by the fact that his family is pretty conservatively religious. (Sister: "What are we going to do??!!" Me: "Set him up with men?") But it occurs to me that part of the big deal is the label "gay" and the persistent belief on the part of many--including many in the LBGT community--that what you do with your genitalia affects who you are as a person.

I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on queer theory or the politics of the LBGT community, but it seems like that's part of the issue with this bi tension. AlexM's experience suggests that the people in that particular Alliance, or at least that particular director, had invested some major part of their identity in being HOMOsexual, and somehow Alex's BIsexuality cheapened it. My question is, why are we so invested in whom other people want to have sex with, and for that matter, whom we want to have sex with?

Bleh, this is less coherent than I'd like. I think it's kind of a reflection on the fact that a few other commenters have brought up: that sexuality isn't a binary, it's a range, and the range covers everything from the biological sex of the desired partner to what color their hair is to what they do for a living to the timbre of their voice, etc., etc.

Actually Mr. Casablanca subsequently "came out" as considering himself as bisexual in a subsequent piece and explained he has meant the entire thing to be "ironic".

All of this having further been commented on by Mr. Josh Lynsen, News Editor at the Washington Blade and a very out Bi-identified LGBT man himself in an fine piece entitled "Honesty amidst smoke and mirrors"

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=21812

"Gah, this "bisexuality isn't real" stuff makes me so angry. Probably understandable, since I'm bisexual myself. But seriously, people, are your perfect binaries really that precious?"

Clare, I think your statement is quite ironic considering bisexuality is a binary construct. It assumes binary gender.

I definitely believe it is possible to love more than one gender (I do) but I feel like binary gender isn't brought up enough when talking about the validity of bisexuality. If someone wants to identify as bisexual more power to them, I just wish there was more discourse about the issue.

Personally, I identify as bisexual or queer. But gay, straight, bi, and queer are not the only identities out there. I suggest looking up pansexualitity, postmodern sexuality, non-monosexuality, among other fluid labels/identities out there. Either way, I feel as if no matter what label you choose to identify yourself or the labels you assume others hold, identity politics restrict yet liberate us all...

Bisexuality (and other identities beyond gay and straight) is both within the gender/sexual orientation binary and outside of it at the same time. It reinforces the binaries and it challenges them at the same time. Biphobia comes from straight and gay communities....

No wonder this conversation is happening...